Pro-Life Catholics, how do you respond to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VanitasVanitatum said:
People can hide from truth for only so long before if catches up with them.
Whether that occurs in the here or in the hereafter will determine how much of a problem that is for them.
God has provided his church to help guide us. This church has told us God’s view of abortion.
Hide from it if you wish. I pray you do not.
Click to expand...
Many of think the Church is wrong and is misinterpreting God’s message, or perhaps is deliberately falsifying it.
What do you think of all the sermons you listened to from priests that abused children?
Is not their message corrupted?
That being said, I won’t speak for everyone, but many that are pro-choice, abortion is something we must strive to eliminate, but making it illegal without appropriate support and caring for mothers and the less fortunate is just as sinful.
I for one, think the Church’s position on birth control and abortion are contradictory.
Click to expand...
 
Random piece of trivia-- back in the 60’s/70’s, that’s exactly how they (NARAL, and NARAL + PP) were able to get Catholics and other anti-abortion individuals to vote for candidates in spite of their support for abortion.

It was a three-pronged marketing approach.

Prong #1 was, there was a great amount of financial support for pro-abortion candidates. It didn’t matter what else they espoused, but they threw their support behind someone who stood for it, and threw their criticism against anyone who didn’t.

Prong #2 was, every time a woman died from an illegal abortion, you would draw attention to it. “This kind of tragedy wouldn’t happen if abortion was safe, legal, and rare!” So you would make it the fault of those who were against abortion in the first place, rather than the doctor’s fault or the woman’s fault for breaking the law.

Prong #3 was, “Well, I wouldn’t do that myself, but who am I to stop someone else from making their choices about their life?” Phrasing it in terms of “choice” was probably the most genius thing they ever did.

You can still recognize those three approaches today.
 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
What do you think of all the sermons you listened to from priests that abused children?
Is not their message corrupted?
Click to expand...
I judge based on the merits of what is said. If a murder says racism is wrong would you dismiss it?
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
What do you think of all the sermons you listened to from priests that abused children?
Is not their message corrupted?
Click to expand...
But now you are contradicting yourself. You previously said this:

“This church has told us God’s view of abortion.
Hide from it if you wish. I pray you do not.”

But now you are saying you judge based on the merits of what is said, not who is saying it.
This is exactly my point. Just because the Church says something doesn’t mean we should believe it.

I do not want abortion to exist. I disagree with those that claim it is a valid form of birth control. I am not “pro-abortion”. But unfortunately, we live in a world where forcing a woman to carry a child and raise it is not justifiable. As I said previously, why don’t we pass a law that any childless couple with means MUST adopt a baby that otherwise would have been aborted by a mother? That solves much if not all of the sociological justification for abortion.
Click to expand...
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
Using God as an argument against people who don’t believe will not bear any fruit. In this case, it’s hypothetical people, but nonetheless it won’t work
Click to expand...
The question is brought up in context of a Catholic forum. What the church has to say on the subject is valid for the argument.
 
It isn’t if they don’t believe that the Church is infallible. There are a few atheists and agnostics here and it won’t work on them.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, even if you disregard the pro-life issue, the pro-life candidate is almost always stronger on the following:
  • religious liberty
  • freedom from unnecessary government control (like freedom from socialism, communism, and fascism)
  • an economic system that best fights poverty, similar to America’s
  • freedom to choose private health insurance
  • protection from invasion along the border from drug cartels, child sex-trafficking, MS-13, and other law-breakers.
In other words, I almost always find the fact that a candidate is pro-life to be an indicator that he or she is almost always on the right side of most other issues.
 
LateCatholic said:
Just because the Church says something doesn’t mean we should believe it.
Click to expand...
This is certainly true for non-Catholics, but it is simply irrational for a Catholic to think this way. Either the church is what she claims to be, or she isn’t. Pick one, and accept the implications of that choice.
 
That depends on whether the State is justified in its application of capital punishment. There have been numerous incidents in history where the State has been objectively unjustified in its use of capital punishment. Anyone who is aware of this and yet willingly carries out such an order is acting immorally.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
I would agree that, objectively, there is good and evil. The problem is, how do we humans determine what is good and evil? The answer “The Church tells us” is not adequate…
Click to expand...
To be more precise, The Church does not tell us. At least not in a way that gives a clear answer to every applied instance. What the Church tells us unambiguously is true. But applying Church teaching is where conscience comes in. Two people of good faith can disagree on whether a specific incident is right or wrong even if they do agree on the formal teaching itself.
 
I think we see that daily. Recourse to the Constitution has become meaningless.

An encyclical is not infallible, and these seem to be concerned with things–political science!!!–which have nothing to do with religion. I’m not sure how many theologians, bishops, or cardinals, not to mention Pope Francis, would believe any of that today. I’m guessing not many.

Glad to help. Catechism, section 1782:
“Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’”

or 1790: " A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself."

And yes, you must try to form your conscience correctly, and yes, your conscience can be in error. But the fact remains that your own conscience is supreme–as the catechism says. I’m going to bet a million to one that you disagree.

At this point it’s clear (to me, anyway) that further discussion is pointless. I am charitable enough not to want to waste your time, and I certainly don’t want to waste mine. So I will cheerfully withdraw from this thread. Clearly you have your own set of beliefs which are diametrically opposed to mine. And yet we are both Catholics. Amazing, isn’t it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top